44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2024 10:00AM
- Jan/30/24 10:33:39 a.m.
- Watch
I am going to ask once again for the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, who was asked to apologize, to be consistent with the ruling of this Chair, because when members present petitions there should be no comment aside from the substance of the petition. To mention whether another hon. member presented it or did not, for whatever reason, it should stand as it is. Before we go to points of order, I will ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to be consistent with this, to start the new year right and, please, to briefly apologize and withdraw those comments. In presenting petitions in the future, all members should just focus on the substance of the petitions and not make comments as to other issues.
I will ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to please stand.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:34:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will not apologize for standing up for the people of this country. They are not being—
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:35:00 a.m.
- Watch
Until the member does rise to apologize, the Chair will not be recognizing the member.
The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:35:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, this precedent was supposedly set because of what I apologized for. I said at the time that if I did something wrong, then I will apologize, I guess. It still was not clear whether I had broken any rules. However, I said I will never apologize for representing the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. That is exactly what I said.
There is no clear ruling on this saying that we even broke any rule by doing so, and so please—
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:35:32 a.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for that. We will certainly take a look to make sure everything is consistent. However, from the advice I received from the officers at the table, it is.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:35:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that the advice you are getting from the table officers has to be explained to the House. It is an honour to stand in the House—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:35:57 a.m.
- Watch
We are getting into debate.
The Chair did explain what was brought forward by the table officers. I ask members to continue to be patient, and we will be able to bring it forward. I ask members to please take their seats for the moment while I go through the point of order. I will be getting back to the House.
Continuing with petitions, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:36:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present my first petition of calendar year 2024. It is perhaps not too late to wish all members in this collegial and loving environment a happy new year.
I would like to present a petition from constituents who are concerned that we move towards a just transition, and that in phasing out fossil fuels and winding down the fossil fuel industry, there be a centring of workers in the process; good, green jobs and inclusive workforce development that proceed expeditiously; expansion of the social safety net to new income supports; decarbonization of public housing; and operational funding for affordable and accessible public transit.
There are a number of other points in the petition, but I think these are the salient ones that the petitioners hope the government will take on board and implement.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:37:47 a.m.
- Watch
On the issue that was raised by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, we did look at Hansard and find that the member did apologize for breaking the rules. I would invite members to look at it and see that the member did apologize for breaking the rules. I thank the member for doing so.
Mr. Bob Zimmer: I said, “if I broke the rules”.
The Speaker: There is no debate on this issue; there is just the presentation. The record has stood in the House of Commons as to what happened in December.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:39:04 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to your attention your lack of consistency on this issue. The member from the NDP raised a point or order, and you immediately followed, saying that when presenting petitions, it should be the matter of the petition only that is addressed. Immediately following, another member made a quite extensive presentation regarding the petition he was presenting. You did not intervene then, so why would you intervene in the issue with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot?
Mr. Glen Motz: It's not because you're partisan or anything, is it?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:40:59 a.m.
- Watch
That is not considered parliamentary. I invite the member to immediately stand up to apologize, or he will not be recognized by this Chair.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:41:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment, but these are comments that I hear from my constituents on a daily—
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:41:44 a.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for withdrawing the comment.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:41:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to an incident on December 15, 2023. The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques presented a petition in the House. At the end of the petition, he said, “I hope that as a result of petition e‑4604, the Liberal government will finally understand that it needs to meet the expectations and needs of our students and researchers.” I note that at that time, the Assistant Deputy Speaker objected to the member's statement and highlighted this rule: “The hon. member may present only the content of the petition. He cannot present his point of view on the petition to the House. I just want to make this point, because a member was about to raise a point of order on this subject.”
However, the Assistant Deputy Speaker at the time did not request an apology. That was one incident. I think there are many instances where members have been accused of going over the line in their commentary on petitions. When that has happened, other members have raised points of order. The Chair has sometimes chastened the member, encouraged the member to speed up or encouraged the member to stop.
It is without precedent that the Chair would demand an apology from a member who engages in this fairly minor and somewhat subjective transgression of the standing order. There are many examples. I have cited one of them from December 15, 2023, which I found after about 10 seconds of searching. I could find dozens of such examples where, yes, members may have gone over the line a little bit; yes, points of order may have been raised and the Speaker may even have said that the member should not have done that and should remember for the next time. However, it is not reasonable to simply make up a new standard, apply it to a particular member and require that member to apologize for such a minor infraction.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take all of that precedent into consideration and provide some clarification.
359 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:45:30 a.m.
- Watch
Before we move on to a plethora of points of order, I will address the issue made by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
It is, indeed, true that the member can point to many examples where members have made comments on petitions that have been presented to the House. That does happen from time to time and usually gets a rebuke or reminder by the Chair for members to focus on the subject of the petition.
However, there have been instances when the Chair, in this case the The Assistant Deputy Speaker, on December 15, 2023, when a member accused another member of lacking courage to present a petition or made a comment about the member's character. The member was asked to apologize. He did apologize for having broken any rules of the House if he had, which the Chair had determined he had done. That is the reason this is being asked for here today.
This is a matter that the Chair would be pleased to come back to members about with more detailed observations as to what should and should not be done. Suffice it to say that it makes sense that members' impugning the character of other members would be considered unparliamentary and usually would require an apology. This matter is now closed on this issue.
I am going to hear the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, who will rise on a point of order and cite some rules of procedure. After we hear him, I am going to be pretty satisfied that the matter is closed until the Chair comes back to the House.
277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:47:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, in my previous statement, I said that if I had said something wrong, I apologize. It was never made to clear to me by the Table after that point that I had made an error.
Bosc and Gagnon say, “The Member may then give a brief statement to inform the House of the petition’s content”, which is exactly what the member did. It does not say that a member cannot be mentioned, which is the NDP's whole point of order in the first place. It does not say in Bosc and Gagnon that I am not allowed to do that. It does say, “The Member may not make a speech or enter into debate on or in relation to the petition”, which I was not doing. I was making a brief statement about the petition then went into the petition. I broke no rules; therefore, I will rescind my apology because I did not make a mistake.
I would also challenge you with respect to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. He did not make a mistake either and should not be prevented from speaking in the House.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:48:07 a.m.
- Watch
The Chair will come back to the House on this matter. I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for quoting from the rules, but as he had also quoted as a preliminary to what he had raised, there is indication as to why the member was asked to apologize and what the Chair considered at the time for the rules.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:48:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I request a clarification because you said the issue was closed, and then said you will come back to the House.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:49:00 a.m.
- Watch
This is the same matter that I heard from informal comments as from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
Discussion on this issue is closed. I will come back to the House with a fuller explanation so members can conduct themselves with greater clarity in the future.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:49:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that is not on this issue, as you will be coming back to the House.
The chamber is the place for members to voice their concerns with respect to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
